Yep, your newsroom amplifies far-right narratives
Tips on how to check your reporting
😮💨 Are you feeling out of breath too - in this election year?
European, national and regional elections - I've held my breath so many times and most of the time I didn't get to exhale in relief.
With each election I've also become increasingly frustrated that we journalists still don't know how to deal with far-right populists.
Too much of our reporting and editorial decisions give oxygen to their narratives. I've seen so many examples pop up in my social feeds in the last months - from a wide range of media across Europe.
🙌 But: We can change it! It’s in our journalistic hands - really.
💌 So I took a little break from my frustration and typed up this special issue of the newsletter.
👇 Scroll on for some suggestions on how we might do better :
👋 Hey there fellow curious journalists,
thanks so much for coming on this email-ride - curating interesting bits and pieces from journalism across Europe (and occasionally beyond).
As a heads up: I’m changing the structure of the newsletter - going forward I’ll alternate between editions that feature deep dives on just one topic (like this one) and editions that curate interesting discoveries across European newsrooms in a shorter, listicle style.
☕ For this edition you have 1.200 words ahead of you - that’s about 8 minutes reading time.
Let’s stick together and follow strict rules to
1) Create a media firewall against the far-right
💪 It works - there is evidence: In Wallonia, a region in Belgium, all public broadcasters formed such a firewall - a ‘cordon sanitaire médiatique’ - in the 1990s. It helped keep far-right populists out of the parliament.
📖 There is a really interesting paper on this by Léonie de Jonge - you can read it in full here.
This is the TL;DR-Version:
Cordon sanitaire médiatique - rules:
No platform for individuals linked to racist or anti-democratic groups 🚫
No live interviews or talk show invitations ❌
Journalists may still talk to far-right extremists but:
Quotes must be contextualized 🗣️
Anti-democratic content must be clearly identified ⚠️
Far-right speeches are summarized, not broadcast live 📝
⚖️ Backed by Belgian Council of State Ruling (1999):
Public broadcasters have the right to deny access to undemocratic parties 📜
📰 All together:
Even commercial broadcasters and most print media in Wallonia follow the same principles 📡
👉 Unfortunately, the cordon sanitaire only really works to keep far-right parties at bay when they are not yet established. In many European countries we have already passed that point.
But small steps still help: If you can't form a firewall with everyone - use these rules in your own newsroom.
What makes covering far-right populists such a delicate balancing act:
💡There’s a phenomenon called the (illusory) truth effect → It’s the tendency to believe false information to be true after repeated exposure.
This means it matters how often for ex. racist statements and lies from the far-right are repeated by the media.
The tricky part for us journalists: It doesn’t make any difference, if the reporting “was fact-based, critical, investigative, neutral, etc.”, as Ellen Heinrichs from the Bonn Institute points out.
👉 Just last week a report was published suggesting that disproportionate coverage of the AfD by Germany’s public broadcasters ARD and ZDF helped the party win votes in this month’s the regional elections.
🤔 The report wonders why broadcasters have given the party so much media visibility when it’s not in government at either state or federal level?
That’s why we should also
2) Re-think what is newsworthy
We all know: Not every information is worth reporting. That’s why newsrooms have a list of criteria for deciding whether or not to pursue a story - and it will mostly look something like this:
Impact / Timeliness / Proximity / Prominence / Conflict / Human Interest / Novelty
The Problem is that these criteria are not enough to filter information when dealing with far-right populists and extremists. Just think of all the headlines and reports during the Trump presidency. They also don’t help identify potential ‘information laundering’ - which is increasingly used to spread radical and racist messages through the media.
One solution: Invest time in developing additional criteria for your newsroom that also act as a speed bump → Don't rush to report - take a breath, assess, then decide.
🏁So where do you start with defining new criteria?
Fortunately, there’s this fantastic publication: “The Oxygen of Amplification: Better Practices for Reporting on Extremists, Antagonists, and Manipulators Online.”
It’s a great analysis of how the news media was “hijacked” (their word) between 2016 to 2018 to amplify the messages of hate groups and the consequences:
“What happens in the news reaches into social media, bounces back to search, rolls into advertising, creeps across pop culture, loops through to our living rooms, and lodges in our hearts, which get we sit down in front of devices in order to read the news.”
The best part of the paper: It also offers a number of better editorial practices you can implement in your newsroom.
📖I highly recommend reading the whole thing - but, with a little AI help, I also created this checklist based on the report’s recommendations:
Is the Story newsworthy? 🤔
1. Tipping Point Evaluation 📈
Has the story extended beyond the initial community's interest? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Has the content been broadly shared outside its core group? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
If not covered, would the story likely fade away? (0 = Yes, 1 = No)
2. Amplification Risk 🔊
Will reporting on this issue unnecessarily amplify it? (0 = Yes, 1 = No)
Will the coverage contribute positively to social discourse? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
3. Social Benefit 🌍
Will the story provide a positive social benefit? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Will it open up new conversations? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
Will it add weight and exemplars to an existing conversation? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
4. Balancing Knowledge and Harm ⚖️
Could the story cause harm, such as embarrassment, retraumatization, or professional damage? (0 = Yes, 1 = No)
5. Potential Audience Harm 🚫
Could the audience misuse the information to cause harm? (0 = Yes, 1 = No)
Could the story lead to someone being targeted or crimes being replicated? (0 = Yes, 1 = No)
Scoring and Interpretation 🧮
- Add up the scores from each question.
- Total Score Range: 0 to 10.
Decision Thresholds 📊
- 8-10: The story is likely newsworthy and should be considered for reporting.
- 5-7: The story has potential but requires careful consideration of its implications.
- 0-4: The story is likely not newsworthy and should be reconsidered.
💡Aaaand as always, I’m curious to hear about your experiences:
Have you or your newsroom thought about measures to avoid inadvertently giving oxygen to far-right narratives? If so, what has worked well for you?
Also, do you have any tips and tricks for being less frustrated with our profession as a whole? Asking for a friend.
🧠If you'd like to share any wisdom you've gained: Just hit reply or share it in the Substack comments.
🫶 Yay, you’ve made it this far - thanks so much for scrolling all the way through!
👆Did you enjoy this issue? Then feel free to spread the newsletter-lover! 💌
🌐Sidenote: If you are wondering: How can I read up on all theses examples in a foreign language? There is this fitting quote I overheard:
“The language of Europe is translation.”
Luckily, translation has gotten quite easy: Nearly every browser has a neat translation function (or an add-on available), a lot of email providers too and there is of course your favourite AI tool to help out.
👋 That’s all - for now.
Stay curious out there,
Isabel
*This newsletter was made with lots of ❤️ and a bit of help by AI (for better flow and translations) - started in a very hot apartment in Berlin and finished in windy Bretagne.*